Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
